 |
USA Today Sports Images Tom Gorzelanny was non-tendered by the Nationals last month. |
The deal, reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, is still contingent on Gorzelanny passing a physical, which is scheduled to take place Friday. Financial terms aren't yet known, but by signing him through 2014 the Brewers are buying out his first year of free agency. [UPDATE AT 2:30 P.M. -- Gorzelanny's deal will total roughly $6 million, according to FoxSports.com.]
Gorzelanny, 30, was an effective long reliever for the Nationals this season, going 4-2 with a 2.88 ERA in 45 appearances (one of them a late-season spot start after the Nats clinched the NL East title).
But with a $3 million salary entering his final season of arbitration, he stood to earn a raise for 2013 and the Nationals didn't believe it was worth it to spend that much money on ostensibly a mop-up man. They wound up re-signing another lefty, Zach Duke, for $1 million to hold that role.
Gorzelanny was one of three Nationals to be non-tendered on Nov. 30, joining fellow lefty John Lannan and catcher Jesus Flores. Lannan has since signed with the Phillies for $2.5 million; Flores remains unsigned.
The Brewers were desperate for left-handed relievers but also could use Gorzelanny as depth for their rotation. A starter most of his career, he was initially acquired by the Nationals in January 2011 -- in a trade with the Cubs for minor leaguers Michael Burgess, A.J. Morris and Graham Hicks -- to serve as their No. 5 starter.
Gorzelanny went 2-6 with a 4.46 ERA in 15 starts for the Nationals in 2011, then was moved to the bullpen, where he enjoyed more success.
66 comments:
Good for Tom. Happy for him. Will cheer for him to have success against any Non-Nats team.
Gorzy was highly useful, willing and able. But easily replaceable. Will miss him, but no great loss.
I'm worried about lefties in the pen. We need some quality and I don't think Duke and Bray are good enough. Mike Gonzales seems like a no-brainer to me. But I would like to get 2 quality BP lefties on the FA market.
Duke earned a spot as much if not more than Chad Tracey and John Lannan for that matter. The guy busted his butt in AAA ended up going 15-5 to lead the Chief's staff and then came up and was sparkling in relief.
Gorzo didn't seem to fit in to the bullpen culture and then Davey reached a point where he no longer trusted him in games ... so ...
Good for Gorzo.
Here's a question... if we keep Morse instead of ALR - something I am warming to - will we look back on regret because of Morse's fielding ability?
Interesting Peric. I notices he was a bit different too. Not that he wasn't solid or that he was a bad guy, but personality wise he was a bit different. Anyone else notice anything?
Nice signing for the Brewers. Gorz can start, he can relieve, they need innings and flexibility and he comes at a nice price. They might even try to bolster his value and trade him away when his 2103 salary looks like a bargain. Lefties is lefties. We'll see.
Here's a question... if we keep Morse instead of ALR - something I am warming to - will we look back on regret because of Morse's fielding ability?
One word answer: No.
Two word answer: Absolutely not.
Three word answer: No frickin' way.
Need I go on?
Alphabet Soup Erik said...
I think Morse is probably better and certainly has more potential for an MVP type season. His 162 game averages as a National are .295/32/97 and I don't think he has even peaked yet.
They are great numbers and Morse was injured most of 2012.
I think that's why I have flip-flopped. Here's my Opening Day 2013 projected Lineup
Span CF LH
Werth RF RH
Harper LF LH
Zim 3B RH
Morse 1B RH
Desi SS RH
Espi/Lomb 2B S
Suz/Ram C RH
Agree with the concern about LH relievers.
I am skeptical about Mike Gonzalez as his number were declining unitl last year. He will turn 35 next May, and think that it's likely he regresses to 2010 or 2011 performance level when he pitched at replacement level. Not sure what other options are out there, but if the Nats fail to add a LH reliever before the start of 2013 -- no contending team will have a larger question mark at that spot in the bullpen than the Nats.
They gooooooooone!
Rizzo must have somebodies in mind. Both Burnett and Gorzo did what they were asked to do.
Good luck to those guys. I'll miss seeing them do their work.
I like the guy in the tree. I like his professionalism, his patience, and that he uses his off-season the way I would, to recover and refresh both physically and mentally.
Three stubborn guys: Davey, Rizzo, Adam LaRoche. In 2020, I hope one of them writes a book, should be fascinating.
Gorzy did what he was told, and that's a big plus in these days of ego-driven players. That said, he seemed to be best in "low-leverage" situations. I wish him all the best in Milwaukee (other than when he pitches against the Nats of course).
Is Howell or MGonzo still an option? I think Duke and Bray might be enough.
Michael Morse @Dc_BEAST38 Huge cage and leg workout with detroits Alex Avila
Michael Morse @Dc_BEAST38 Finishing huge workout with AL MVP #triplecrown
When it comes to professionalism, there's deer hunter professionalism and then there's ballplayer professionalism.
FeelWood, c'mon now, stop.
If ALR hunts all day and works out at night while MM works out during the day does that make MM regment better?
ALR has been nothing but professional.
Yeah, I'll take the quiet deer hunter (who could, yes, he could injure himself slicing his meat) over the crazy guy. Yeah, those star-studded off-season workouts COULD work, yeah, they could...
Factoring age into the equation LaRoche should be working out ... and very, very hard if he wants to repeat last year. But, he doesn't seem worried.
I'll take Morse who for "a goof" Natslady is sure taking the offseason and competition in the spring seriously. Plus he just got married that typically can add some additional urgency.
LaRoche had better be ready. If Morse comes in like he did in ST 2011? And he is coming up on his first contract free agent year?
NatsLady said...
Gorzy did what he was told, and that's a big plus in these days of ego-driven players
That's a point that shouldn't be lost. He essentially got demoted to the 'pen and did what he was asked to do.
peric, why should LaRoche be worried? If he's willing to take 2 years, he'll get plenty of offers. That 3rd year, that's the sticking point. In the end, I think Rizzo will have his way and ALR will sign for 2 years.
Remember the days gone by, when the Nats would let a player go and he wouldn't even sniff a major league job again. Even our trash has value now, we come a long way baby!
NL
I think peric was suggesting that the Nats might re-sign ALR, then make him compete in ST for the job they just hired him to do. You know, the same way they just traded for Span so they can make him compete for his job, too.
By the way--sorry about about confusing you and 1a in that thread yesterday.
If ALR is signed, would the Mariners still be interested in MM? He could play right field and there offense would go from poor to Average or better.
And the could have a Morales Morse Montero combo.
Would the move one of their top prospects? Hultzen, Walker or Paxson?
Tcostant said...
Remember the days gone by, when the Nats would let a player go and he wouldn't even sniff a major league job again. Even our trash has value now, we come a long way baby!
Its not trash any more. Its leftovers. Look no further than the Rule 5 Draft. Ex-Nats are in demand.
Water23, Danny Hultzen for Michael Morse. What are you drinking?
JD, when you mentioned that maybe ALR would have to settle for a one year contract it got me thinking, probably not a good idea :-)
Anyway, since the Nationals had to offer ALR a contract at 13.2 million is this contract null and void as soon as ALR turned it down?
Since another team now has to give up a first round draft pick if they sign him wouldn't they have to beat 13.2 million or can the Nats or any other team now get him for less?
If it is the case that as soon as ALR turned down the 13.2 it was gone it seems that this new rule greatly favors the team over the player. I would wonder why the MLB players association would have agreed to this because it doesn’t give the player any real leverage since the contract no longer exist but giving up the draft pick does.
What if the National didn't sign him and decided to go with Morse? There might be a good chance that no one would sign ALR to a one year contract because they wouldn't want to give up the draft pick, effectively making him persona non-gratis in baseball or at least making him sign for a very low amount of money.
Maybe I’m missing something? Anyone know exactly how this works?
Fox, its a negotiable market on ALR. Whatever he agrees to. I have been thinking $12.5 to $14 million a year as the range.
Fox - Once the $13.3M offer was turned down, is is no longer on the table and cannot be accepted now. He had only those seven days after the it was offered to accept it.
Ghost - I know, that was my point. While I said trash, I just meant players that the Nats moved on from...
Fox
Ghost and Tcostant answered the specific question. As for how the new system works in general:
While it definitely hurts some individual FAs (and ALR is one), on the it makes it harder for teams to turn departing FAs into compensatory draft picks. That, in combination with limits on what teams can spend on their top draft picks, means teams are going to spend more $$$ on existing major leaguers (aka, union members) than high school/college players (aka, non-union members).
Thanks Ghost.
It would seem that ALR is in a very poor negotiating position.
Not many teams would like to rent ALR for one year at 12-14 million having to give up a first round draft pick so I would think the team that signs him would want him for at least 2?
It will be very strange if he re-signs with the Nats for an average of less than 13.2 million.
This new rule maybe makes more FA's but unless the team that offers it has to really sign the player it is a terrible situation for the player to be in.
Thanks everyone, and hiramhover you are correct that it really hurts ALR.
I can see in the future where the team that offers the 13.3 then decides to go another direction and then the player in question would take a big financial hit or worse they might not be offered a contact at all.
Ghost-Morse for Hultzen is certainly not that far-fetched is it? Maybe not straight up, but you know Hultzen would love to play in his hometown. If Rizzo can make that happen, I would be pretty impressed.
The Fox, I also think its an excuse for some teams saying they want to keep their Draft Picks. Like I said, under the old system with Type A Free Agents you gave up your 1st rounder if you were top tier. Remember on Dunn, the Nats got the White Sox pick at #23 and chose Alex Meyer.
The White Sox got the 47th pick in 2011 only as Sandwich Comp for losing JJ Putz otherwise they wouldn't have had any 1st round picks.
Fox, others can explain it more precisely I'm sure, but the bottom line is that a player has to decline a qualifying offer in order to become a free agent. So the offer the Nats made is no longer available. If another team signs ALR to any kind of contract -- one year, two year, at a price more or less than the offer the Nats made, the Nats get a sandwich draft pick as compensation and the signing team (other than the worst 10 teams in the previous year) loses its first round pick. The Nats theoretically could sign ALR to a one year deal for less than their original offer. That almost certainly won't happen though.
The new CBA is more advantageous to the players than the old one because it created the "qualifying offer" rather than providing that any of the bottom half teams that signed a Type A free agent lost a draft pick. So only teams losing the highest priced players get a pick. In addition, under the old CBA, if a team obtained a player at the trading deadline who became a Type A free agent at the end of the year, it would get a compensation pick. That's not the case now. Both changes make it easier for most free agents to sign with other teams.
Cue the corrections from more knowledgable posters.
Alphabet Soup Erik said...
Ghost-Morse for Hultzen is certainly not that far-fetched is it? Maybe not straight up, but you know Hultzen would love to play in his hometown. If Rizzo can make that happen, I would be pretty impressed.
December 20, 2012 2:05 PM
You just changed it to "not straight up". Exactly, not straight up and they would want a boatload for him so probably not doable.
I think teams and agents will learn from this year under the new CBA. Teams will now fear that a player they don't want may accept the "qualifying offer" because they fear they may not get a better offer since a team needs to give up a high draft pick.
Agents will consider any "qualifying offer" more in the future, because of this draft pick factor.
It the new west, not the old west.
Alphabet Soup Erik, the one thing I will say about Hultzen is his 1st season in the Minors in 2012 went from great to bad. He sliced through his 1st assignment in AA like an Ace and then got promoted to AAA and didn't do well at all. His BB/9 and WHIP more than doubled after the promotion.
Still, Hultzen is at the top of Seattle's prospect list so I don't see them trading him any time soon unless it was a big haul.
Yes, Trevor Bauer was just traded from that same Draft Class so anything is possible but it was well known Arizona had issues with him.
Tcostant said...
I think teams and agents will learn from this year under the new CBA. Teams will now fear that a player they don't want may accept the "qualifying offer" because they fear they may not get a better offer since a team needs to give up a high draft pick.
Agents will consider any "qualifying offer" more in the future, because of this draft pick factor.
It the new west, not the old west.
December 20, 2012 2:19 PM
You know, I think you are right on some players but not on the Michael Bourn types that are elite FAs, and that is why Rizzo didn't give EJax a qualifying offer because he feared he may take it.
9 players got qualifying offers this year and David Ortiz went back to Boston.
Of the remaining 8 players players who were given offers are LaRoche and the Yankees' Rafael Soriano, Hiroki Kuroda, and Nick Swisher, outfielders Michael Bourn of the Atlanta Braves, Josh Hamilton of the Texas Rangers, and BJ Upton of the Tampa Bay Rays, and pitcher Kyle Lohse of the St Louis Cardinals.
The Angels and Braves took qualifying players and have forfeited their 1st round picks.
Ghost-Was trying to think of Hultzen from the Mariners standpoint, and after watching guys like Matusz never really materialize, I was thinking they could be open to it. Guys like Hultzen seem to be really hard to project. If he pans out, he would fit nicely into that #4 or #5 role for the Nationals for 2014-2016 at a very low cost (financial). I have been against trading Morse, but for a guy like Hultzen, it might be worth the gamble.
Mariners are not trading one of their top prospects for one year of Morse.
Good luck to Gorzelanny (except when we play them, of course).
Erik, it all sounds fun but Seattle isn't giving him ups...yet!
Tcostant is quite right in that teams, players, and agents will draw various conclusions from the first year of the 'qualifying offer' arrangement, but I would argue that it's still much too early to know what lessons they will really learn. And whether the lessons they take away will be the right ones. Remember that this year's QOs represented a small sample size: only nine players were extended offers (I left David Ortiz out of those I mentioned in a post a few days ago). All nine rejected their offers, but then two quickly re-signed with their old teams (one for two years, the other for a higher one-year salary). But until all of them are signed, I'm not sure anyone can say what impact the QO system will have on future offers/signings.
Ghost and Tcostant and everyone else who weighed in on the matter.
The real difference with the new 13.3 rule is that the team has to put up the money not just tell the fans we tried to sign the player like Dunn.
The WaPost has an article today about EJax's and how many thought they could have gotten the draft picks for him. This all sounds good when it not your 13.3 million, so there is a real risk here.
I don't think this rule will change things for star players teams will still want them and star players usually make teams money. Players like ALR and EJaxs will be on the bubble and I think there may be some unintended consequences from this rule.
I think the players association might have miscalculated on this one, while it should create more FA's having more of them should decrease their price not increase it. I guess we shall see how it all plays out.
Ghost-Agreed. I probably wouldn't even want to trade Morse for him anyways. Too much risk for a guy who throws 90-92 MPH. The way the rotation is set up, Morse is the more valuable player to this team right now.
I don't know if the facts would back this up or not, but I feel like every time Gorzo came into a game he gave up exactly one run. No matter what the score was. Just feels that way to me.
Don't look now but the very lowly Fish are assembling a linep that might score some runs.
Pierre LF
Polanco 3B
Ruggiano CF
Stanton RF
Dobbs/Morrison 1B
Solano 2B
Brantly C
Hechavarria SS
P
Now they may not stop anyone from scoring as the pitching is pretty untested to say the least, but it looks like Stanton will get his chances to knock runs in. (Presuming they don't trade him away too, that is.)
Ghost
Thanks for the breakdown. And of the two qualifying players who have signed, one went to a team that is going to get a compensatory draft pick for one of its own departing players (ATL, for Bourn), which reduces the sting; and the other was the most expensive qualifying player on the market, which means that losing the draft pick is, percentage-wise, a smaller part of his total cost to LAA.
It's going to take teams, players, and agents a while to figure out this new system. Maybe next time someone in ALR's shoes will take the qualifying offer. Then he'd have reason to put up walk year #s all over again, so he could get a qualifying offer the next time too.
Don...I think I would take the Rockford Peach lineup over that one, with Madonna leading off and Geena and Rosie hitting 3rd and 4th. LOL...just giving you a hard time.
Works for me, as long as they don't cry. :-)
The union might have blew it here. A better system (for them) would be a team losses a FA get a sandwich pick, but doesn't loss it's draft choice. You could offset it if you get a sandwich pick, but also sign a qualifying player then you loss the sandwich pick. This wouldn't limit movement nearly as much...
Hiram, given ALRs age this is his last chance for a big contract. If he took the $13.3 he would be 34 next year negotiating off of a year that probably won't look as good and looking at being a Carlos Peña type signing 1 year deals every year in new cities.
Crickets on Flores????
On ALR siging, the loss of draft pick will also add $800-$2,500,000 to the value of his deal as that is the portion of the draft signing bonus allocated. that is a big portion of each teams draft pool to give up for a 33 yr old 1B.
Slot Costs
As to Morse for Hultzen, 1) he was one of the SP I mentioned and 2) the offer could be contingent of Morse signing an extension. 3) It was a starting point discussion. The Mariners could and would come back with other options. My thought is that Seattle is a team that has a number of pieces that might fit if Morse is available.
Walter -- does it not subtract that money from his deal as the club who inks him will nto be paying out that bonus cash to the draftee they forego for ALR?
Don, true they will not pay him the money but the point is that in losing the pick the also lose $$$ allocated for the pick. In the new CBA, losing first round money and a first round pick. That is some serious cash and a double whammy. Not that big of an issue if you are acquiring Hamilton or Greinke but for ALR it would have to part of the equation.
team signs ALR -
3 yr $36 Million to ALR
Loses - 1st round pick
Loses - 1st round slot allocation $$$ which makes up a significant portion of Draft $$ allocated per team.
I think that is playing a significant role in the lack of interest in signing ALR.
Looks like the EJax deal is official at 4 yrs at $13 million a year to the Cubs.
Ejax on the cubs for 4 years at $52M. Wow, good for Edwin, he gets a home for 4 years.
Gonat...Add it to my tab
Agreed, Ejax was the consumate teammate and hardworker. I still remember him as a pinch runner. That is a classy guy. Congrats and best of luck!
MicheleS, you are the best!
Wow, and good luck to Edwin.
Post a Comment